Have nothing to do with the [evil] things that people do, things that belong to the darkness. Instead, bring them out to the light... [For] when all things are brought out into the light, then their true nature is clearly revealed...

Tag Archives: Nancy Pelosi

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, August 11, 2017:

It all started when someone, incensed no doubt about conservative television host Dana Loesch’s latest NRA video, tweeted on Wednesday: “Philando Castile followed the safety rules he was taught and he was shot to death. NRA said nothing. They are usually quick to follow up.”

Loesch tried to condense the story of Castile’s death, covered in detail by The New American at the time, into her own tweet in response: “He was also in possession of a controlled substance and a firearm simultaneously which is illegal. Stop lying.”

That was just too much for far-left New York Congresswoman Kathleen Rice, who entered the twitter conversation the next day: “So if a white guy [Castile was black] was shot dead during a routine stop w/ a legal gun & a joint in his car, NRA would remain silent? You’re the ones lying.”

Not hearing anything back from Loesch, Rice reentered the fray five minutes later: “I going to say it NRA & DLoesch are quickly becoming domestic security threats under President Trump. We can’t ignore that.”

Loesch was on Fox News, being interviewed by Mark Steyn, when Rice’s twitters popped up. Steyn told her on the air about them and Loesch expressed her surprise and disappointment that a member of the U.S. Congress was demeaning her rights under the Second Amendment. Immediately after leaving the show, Loesch tweeted Rice: “Rephrase. An elected gov’t official just labeled me and millions of others ‘domestic security threats.’ Wow.”

And then she asked Rice: “Hi Congresswoman, can you explain why you say I and millions of members are ‘domestic security threats?’ Thank you.”

Not getting an immediate response, Loesch then tweeted Rice: “Will ur secret police wear a certain uniform? I want to know who we should look for when we are all taken into custody.”

Loesch gets much credit for knowing precisely whom she is dealing with in Congresswoman Rice, and what Rice has in store for all Americans who own guns in the brave new communist world she is working to create. Unfortunately, most Americans watching the unfolding chatter, banter, and challenge on Twitter don’t know the back story. The New American is happy to provide it.

On her website Rice touts her experience as a former homicide prosecutor in Brooklyn followed by a stint as district attorney of Nassau County: “I aggressively enforced gun laws and led intelligence-driven investigations to take down gun traffickers and seize illegal guns before they reached our neighborhoods,” she asserted.

She is right about one thing: She was certainly aggressive in enforcing those laws. So aggressive in fact that in 2012 a federal jury tossed a case she brought against gun dealer Martin Tretola and awarded him $5 million for compensatory and punitive damages in an effort to offset the pain and suffering he endured for false arrest and prosecution by her.

So aggressive in fact was Rice’s enforcement of gun laws that this isn’t the only case staining her history as DA. Antowine Butts spent two years in jail for a crime he didn’t commit before being released as the case against him unraveled. Butts sued Rice, claiming that she and detectives involved in the case coerced witnesses into testifying against him. One of those witnesses even claimed, under oath, that Rice had arrested the wrong man but she ignored him. For that injustice Butts was awarded $220,000.

If these were the only instances, one might perhaps be persuaded to look the other way. But Newsday took a look and in October 2014 published a 16-page long exposé of her corruption while DA:

A Newsday examination of Rice’s career found at least five instances, including the troubled Butts case, in which Rice was accused of intentional misconduct or of committing a procedural effort serious enough to put her case in jeopardy.

At least two convictions Rice helped secure have been overturned for those reasons, and at least three sitting or retired judges have rebuked Rice over her handing of a case. A fourth judge sanctioned her in another case.

When House Representative Carolyn McCarthy from New York’s Fourth District retired in 2014, Rice left her position and ran a successful effort to replace her. She was sworn in under oath to preserve and protect the Constitution of the United States on January 3, 2015, and has worked night and day to violate and undermine it ever since.

The week after the Orlando nightclub shooting in June 2016, Rice joined about 20 other far-left members in an infamous “sit-in” — a communist tactic — that shut down the House for 24 hours. The protest was over the House not voting for a gun bill in response to the shooting. She joined other far-left members such as John Lewis and Nancy Pelosi in singing the communist anthem “We Shall Overcome” along the way.

Her voting record reflects her ideology. The Freedom Index, published quarterly by The New American, is based on how closely her votes hew to the Constitution she swore to uphold and defend. Her rating is seven percent out of 100 percent.

Loesch, and now the readers here, know exactly who Rice is and what she stands for — all information that her website and the fake news media have hidden from view. Rice is using another well-honed communist tactic in her tweets: accusing Loesch and the NRA of exactly what she herself is guilty of.

Sounding rather testy that the Senate didn’t give him what he wanted on Thursday, President Trump tweeted on Saturday morning that he would not only punish senators and their staffs but cut off the government funding of subsidies — estimated to be $8 billion — to hungry insurance companies. He tweeted: “After seven years of ‘talking’ Repeal & Replace, the people of our great country are still being forced to live with imploding ObamaCare!” He then tweeted the not-so-subtle threat:

If a new HealthCare bill is not approved quickly, BAILOUTS for Insurance Companies and BAILOUTS for Members of Congress will end very soon!

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, July 26, 2017:

Democrats are so upset over the Democrat Party’s new slogan that some demanded that its originator be fired immediately. The slogan, unveiled by Democrat Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer in the New York Times on Monday, is: “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future.” This was birthed after months of intense mental analysis of last November’s loss to Donald Trump, and it was, according to many, stillborn. The Gateway Pundit massaged Papa John’s Pizza logo on its website, showing Nancy Pelosi beneath the banner, and below, instead of “Papa John’s” was “Dems: Still Pelosi.” It’s worth clicking on it. (See Sources below).

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, May 12, 2017:

Official Congressional portrait of former Congresswoman Corrine Brown.

After 11 hours, the jury hearing the case against former Florida Democrat Representative Corrine Brown reached a verdict on Thursday: guilty on 18 out of 22 charges filed against her in federal court. The jury convicted her of conspiracy, five counts of mail fraud, seven counts of wire fraud, one count of scheming to conceal material facts in the case, one count of obstruction of justice, and three counts of tax fraud.

As The New American reported on the case last year, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Leslie Caldwell provided some of the details:

After debating hundreds of items in the stop-gap government spending bill to fund the government through September, congressional leaders birthed a beast that rejected nearly all of President Donald Trump’s campaign promises.

On Sunday night Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer gushed: “This is a good agreement for the American people, and takes the threat of a government shutdown off the table.” He made sure that everyone took note that most of Trump’s priorities were rejected: “The bill ensures taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective wall, excludes [160] poison pill riders [offered by Republicans], and increases investments in programs that [Republicans resisted but] that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education and infrastructure.”

California Democrat Representative Nancy Pelosi was delighted to see a provision included that would require the U.S. taxpayer to bail out Puerto Rico to the tune of $295 million, calling it Medicare relief rather than a bailout:

From the beginning, Democrats have sought to avert another destructive Republican government shutdown, and we have made significant progress improving [this] omnibus bill.

When two big-spending, Constitution-ignoring liberal Democrats get excited about a government spending bill, one knows something is dreadfully amiss.

The White House sought $30 billion for the Pentagon. It got just $15 billion, with $2.5 billion of it on a conditional basis. The White House wanted funding for the wall. It got $1.5 billion for “border security” but with the proviso that none of it be spent on the wall.

The White House has promised to cut funding for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood got an increase. The White House wanted to cut funding to sanctuary cities. That was rejected. Those cities will get their federal funds. It wanted to cut funding for the National Institutes of Health. The NIH got a $2 billion boost. The White House has promised to cut the EPA’s budget. It got millions more in funding, along with a promise that there would be no staff cuts.

The White House has stated it wanted cuts to the Energy Department. Instead, the department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency — which funds experimental energy research and has been targeted for elimination by the White House — got millions more to spend instead.

The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities? They got increases.

In addition, more than 70 items that Bloomberg called “anti-environment policy riders” were scrapped.

Most annoying to those thinking that the new president would actually be keeping his promises was his statement that he would sign the bill if it arrives at his desk “as we discussed.” That could happen as early as Wednesday.

Perhaps the president is making a deal? Give up a little now in order to press for more later? After all, the bill, once signed, would only fund the government through September. The 2018 budget is still a work in progress.

Or is he going along to get along, not wanting to have the Democrats hang the “shutdown the government again” albatross around the Republican Party neck?

Or is he betraying his promises to his constituents in order to get “something, anything” about which he can claim victory during the early days of his administration.

He is the president, after all, and still has plenty of political capital that he could invest in keeping his promises. Why wouldn’t he consider vetoing the bill rather than folding, especially when it contains odious pro-death funding for Planned Parenthood? Wouldn’t this be a good time for him to stand tall and reject the bill, unless and until it reflects his promises and policies? Wouldn’t this be the time, as Ron Paul just said, “to shut down most of the federal government, starting with bringing the troops home and drastically cutting the military-industrial complex’s budget?”

Or has the president been assimilated by The Borg — the powers-that-be in Washington — and just decided that “resistance is futile” and that he’ll be happy that the cuts to his projects and priorities weren’t even worse?

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, February 1, 2017:

The Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building in Washington, D.C., headquarters of the United States Department of Justice.

The first sign of trouble at the Department of Justice occurred at about 9 am on Monday when acting Attorney General Sally Yates ordered her staff not to defend Trump’s immigration order. In an email to her staff, Yates opined:

At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the executive order is consistent with these responsibilities of the Department of Justice, nor am I convinced that the executive order is lawful.

She also took exception to the Trump administration’s claim that her own department’s Office of Legal Counsel had adequately cleared the order beforehand, ruling that his order was “lawful on its face”:

[That ruling] does not address whether any policy choice embodied in an executive order is wise or just….

I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, January 31, 2017:

In a letter hand-delivered to her office Monday evening, President Donald Trump relieved acting Attorney General Sally Yates of her responsibilities. In a statement issued at the same time, the White House said that Yates “has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.”

This article appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Monday, July 11, 2016:

Official Congressional portrait of Congresswoman Corrine Brown.

Representing Florida’s Fifth Congressional District for nearly a quarter of a century, Congresswoman Corrine Brown has had numerous brushes with the law, both inside and outside Congress. On Friday her indictment on 24 charges of milking her charity is likely to end her legislative career permanently.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division, provided some of the details:

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Friday, July 8, 2016:

Breakdown of political party representation in the United States Senate during the 112th Congress. Blue: Democrat Red: Republican Light Blue: Independent

In June there were more gun purchase background checks than at any time recorded since the odious background check system was set up in 1998 as part of the Brady bill that Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994. More than two million Americans sought approval from the government to buy a firearm. Many, no doubt, involved the purchase of more than one, and most were likely driven by anxiety over Congress’s inability to fight terrorism. As Islamic terrorists zero in on America, Congress is, to put the matter kindly, flailing about in its efforts to do anything substantive over the threat.

Instead, in their desire to appear to be doing “something,” especially in an election year, they are willing to do “anything,” even if it’s counterproductive and violates precious constitutional rights of people not connected in any way with the increase in terrorism on American soil.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, put it well:

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Wednesday, May 4, 2016:

Lieutenant Governor of California Gavin Newsom

It’s often helpful to look into the background of a politician promoting a ballot issue on the chance that that look might reveal a hidden agenda. So it appears with California’s Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom. Last year he announced that he was creating a petition for some anti-gun legislation that, if successful, would appear on this year’s November ballot. Last week he announced that he had secured 600,000 signatures for his petition, more than enough for it to be on the ballot.

This article was published by The McAlvany Intelligence Advisor on Monday, April 4, 2016:

Nick Adams, the Australian author of Retaking America: Crushing Political Correctness, has arrived on the American scene at precisely the right moment. He has appeared on nearly every major TV and radio show, writes for Townhall.com and Townhall Finance, and serves as a Centennial Institute Policy Fellow at Colorado Christian University. And he was named Honorary Texan in 2013 by Texas Governor Rick Perry.

PC is being used as a hammer to intimidate, emasculate, or otherwise neutralize opposition to any Progressive agenda. Rather than answering legitimate questions or responding to thoughtful objections, the PC crowd instead accuses the questioner of being

After working privately over the past several weeks with members of the White House staff, as well as with Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), and Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner succeeded late Monday night in cobbling together a deal that gives everyone in Washington what they want but leaves the bill for the taxpayer. By the time the dust settles, the deal will cause the country’s national debt to reach $20 trillion within the next 18 months, if not sooner.

On Friday the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan government agency that is tasked with predicting economic and budgetary impacts of various government programs, issued its analysis of what would happen if ObamaCare (the misnamed Affordable Care Act) were repealed. Its first questionable assumption was that it would be totally repealed effective January 1, 2016.

Its ambiguous, halting, and heavily discounted conclusions served as fodder for the statist media such as CNBC and NBC to warn of huge deficit increases if the socialized medical care program were repealed. NBC headlined a disaster ahead:

In the days running up to the opening of the 114th Congress, speculation was rampant that House Speaker John Boehner’s bid for a third term as speaker was in jeopardy. So much so that Boehner launched a full-court press including meetings with those opposed to his reelection and phone calls to dissidents right up to the last minute before the vote.

In the end, a combination of bad weather, a funeral, and a popular Florida Republican’s reluctance to oppose the speaker until the day before the vote spelled victory for Boehner.

Under House rules, only a majority of those present — not a majority of the total House membership — is needed to elect the speaker. With many Democrats attending the funeral service of former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, and bad weather delaying flights into Washington, those present numbered just 401 out of House membership of 434 (New York Republican Rep. Michael Grimm resigned last week after pleading guilty to felony tax evasion). In the end, Boehner secured his position for another two years with 216 votes.

This article first appeared online at TheNewAmerican.com on Friday, December 12, 2014:

President Barack Obama holds a conference call with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in the Oval Office

At the very last minute, with time and funding for government agencies running out, the House voted 216-206 to pass the so-called “omnibus” bill on Thursday, opening the way for the Senate to pass it on Friday. President Obama has promised to sign it before the day is out.

It was sausage-making at its finest. Even Arizona Republican John McCain said “I hate it, I hate it, I hate it, I hate it” with many expecting him to vote for it on Friday anyway.

Instead of attempting to create and muster support for a temporary bill which would have left the heavy lifting to the newly elected incoming congress in January, House Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Obama decided that

This article was first published at TheNewAmerican.com on Wednesday, July 9, 2014:

Moving to Texas from California

One would think the good doctor is running for Congress from Texas, but he’s not. He’s running to boot a hard-left Democrat who’s been representing the 24th District in California for 15 years by touting all the good things Texas has been doing compared to California. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Brad Allen, a pediatric heart surgeon from Paso Robles, wrote:

As a Californian, I am pained to say that three of the nation’s five fastest-growing cities – and seven of the top 15 – are in Texas.

This article was first published at TheNewAmerican.com on Tuesday, July 8, 2014:

Texas, Our Texas!

Following Toyota’s announcement April 28 that it would be consolidating its three American business headquarters and moving them from California to a new $300-million campus in Plano, Texas, the debate over why has heated up once again. Toyota follows Occidental Petroleum (which is leaving Los Angeles for Houston, after being there for a hundred years), Raytheon (which is moving its El Segundo headquarters to McKinney, Texas), and Legal Zoom (the largest legal-issues website in the world, which has already moved from Los Angeles to Austin). In the past 18 months more than 50 companies have made the same decision to move from California to Texas.

Some say it’s because of the lower cost of living in Texas. The cost of living in Plano is about a third lower than in the Los Angeles-Long Beach area where Toyota is currently located. As calculated by the Dallas-based conservative think tank National Center for Policy Analysis, “People of all incomes will save in Texas,” according to Pamela Villarreal, a senior fellow at the institute. Some will save a little; others will save a lot by moving to Texas to keep their jobs with Toyota. As Villarreal explained, the calculation takes into account property taxes “which are pretty high in Texas” — about twice what they are in California for equivalently priced homes. Once real estate taxes are factored in, a single woman in Texas making $75,000 a year will have about $14,000 more in discretionary income than she would if she lived in California, but married workers making $150,000 a year who move from California to Texas would not see as dramatic a jump in discretionary income.

The Manhattan Institute says it makes sense for California companies to make the move to Texas, owing to California’s high taxes, oppressive regulations, expensive electricity, union influence, and the high cost of labor. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the cost per kilowatt-hour for commercial establishments in California is 13.11 cents while it’s only 8.2 cents in Texas — a saving of almost 40 percent. For industrial users, the savings are even greater: 10.72 cents per KWH in California versus just 5.86 cents in Texas. That cuts a heavy user’s energy bill in Texas nearly in half. Advantage: Texas

The advantage enjoyed by Texas is reflected in the states’ comparative economic growth rates: nearly four percent last year in Texas versus half that in California. In job growth, Texas regained the jobs it lost during the Great Recession by May of 2011 while California just made it back to even by May of this year — a three-year difference in favor of Texas. Since May 2011, Texas has added more than a million new jobs, while California has added barely 25,000 new jobs since this past May. Advantage: Texas

According to the blog 24/7 Wall Street, Texas ranks eighth among the country’s most quickly growing states with GDP growth jumping by $1.5 trillion in 2013. Its population continues to grow as well, with unemployment below the national average. California is well off the pace. Advantage: Texas

Bradley Allen, a pediatric heart surgeon in Paso Robles, just announced his candidacy for Congress in California’s 24th district, and in the process noted the difference between California and Texas in an opinion article at the Wall Street Journal: “Texas has no state income tax, while California’s 13.3% marginal rate is the highest in the country. Electricity rates are about 50%-88% higher compared to Texas due to the Golden State’s renewable-energy mandate, and its gas is 70-80 cents per gallon more expensive because of taxes.” Advantage: Texas

Allen’s opponent is incumbent Lois Capps, who sports a dismal Freedom Index rating of just 21 out of 100 on constitutional issues. Out of California’s 53 congressional districts, 18 of them have FI ratings of 20 or lower, while just one has an FI rating of 80 or higher. In Texas, by contrast, just three representatives have a rating of 20 or less out of the state’s 36 districts, with one, Rep. Steve Stockman, holding an FI rating of 95. Advantage: Texas

One of the best measures of the difference between the two states is just how much a Californian would have to pay to move his family to Texas. In November 2012, a Californian living in San Francisco would pay $1,693 to rent a 20-foot U-Haul truck and drive it San Antonio. On the other hand, a Texan in San Antonio moving to San Francisco would pay just $893 for the same truck. (Since then the numbers have become even more favorable: A Californian moving his family on August 1 from San Francisco to San Antonio would have to pay $1,890 for the same truck while a Texan moving the other way would pay only $737.) Advantage: Texas

However, David Horsey, writing for the Baltimore Sun, noted that Californians moving to Texas will leave an awful lot behind:

In lots of places in California, it’s tough to live on a middle class family budget. In lots of places in Texas, it’s hard to live outside a church-going, football-loving, white, heterosexual lifestyle.

This article first appeared at The New American online on Wednesday, October 16th, 2013:

Despite mounting evidence that the government will have more than enough money to pay its essential bills and that the real national debt is $70 trillion, not $17 trillion, and despite pressure from Tea Partiers and constitutionalists to resist, House Speaker John Boehner is likely to bring the Senate bill to a vote in the House where, if House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is right, it will

Hardly a sentient soul on planet Earth doesn’t know who Edward Snowden is, but few of them know of the ramifications and positives that are already coming as a result of his leak about NSA spying on Americans’ emails, voicemails, and IMs.

Because of his top-secret clearance across a broad spectrum of surveillance programs developed by the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency, Snowden had a rare opportunity to view the threats to privacy these agencies and their enablers have created. So he decided to do something about it:

His latest book arrived on Tuesday on my Kindle and I read it into the wee hours last night. I’m not finished with it but I thought I’d pass on some initial reactions to it in case you’re thinking of getting a copy.

Beck cranks these out on a regular basis using the skills, abilities and experience of others. I think that’s a good strategy, but